From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] [v5] pinctrl: qcom: add support for sparse GPIOs
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 07:12:29 -0500
Message-ID: <619f48d2-59c7-c090-4ace-9e8db9f92064@codeaurora.org>
References: <1504798409-32041-1-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org>
 <20170919070422.GI3349@codeaurora.org>
 <CACRpkdZcdLac_wYW+XqtZ=-APo8VmvYL4B1oL-wZyLy8KEs9AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1ecdf6ee-5098-15d3-f85e-66b39a6c25f9@codeaurora.org>
 <CACRpkdaUV1Mjh7U9bBAgZA5Zq1oqN0HBT=VH5NkvPnY4gHxDVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <d53e67a2-4f69-752f-ba35-53872d9b9760@codeaurora.org>
 <CACRpkdYfAcKrgbgybccurUKTyR0E+tHDyzp7sbXxXxKuyMOGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:55250 "EHLO
        smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751581AbdIUMMg (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 21 Sep 2017 08:12:36 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdYfAcKrgbgybccurUKTyR0E+tHDyzp7sbXxXxKuyMOGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>, Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>, David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org>, anjiandi@codeaurora.org, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>, "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, "thierry.reding@gmail.com" <thierry.reding@gmail.com>, Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

On 9/21/17 7:08 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> I guess gpio_valid_mask would take precedence over irq_valid_mask.
> I.e if the GPIO is not valid then the IRQ is per definition not valid either.
> 
> Since it is a new thing, we can simply define a semantic like that
> and document it.

So what about my current patches?  I hope you're not asking me to 
rewrite them again.

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.